Breaching the daemon only allows for the attacker to get access to the login. User accounts should still be secured requiring authentication.

>If this was so easy to deal with, someone would have done it.

Sadly this is not the case. There is a lot of inertia towards solutions like ssh or sudo. It may be easy to delete them, but actually getting such a changed accepted is no trivial task.

▲

esseph 19 hours ago | parent [-]

> Breaching the daemon only allows for the attacker to get access to the login

Yes, but potentially any login. See the problem? If you compromise the gatekeeper, you are now the keymaster. Or whatever :)

▲

charcircuit 17 hours ago | parent [-]

I'll admit it is still problematic. But at least there is only 1 gatekeeper instead of 2.

▲

jmb99 16 hours ago | parent [-]

How is that better?

▲

charcircuit an hour ago | parent [-]

You can focus all of your energy into strengthening and testing a single point of the system instead of having to do it for many.

	▲	esseph 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You're grasping for straws a bit here. This is already done for ssh as the defacto remote access mechanism for a very long time.